1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Esquilax]

If that were true, how would a simple slug evolve into an intricately complex mammal? Just google "adding information to genome" and you'll find this to be a scientific fact.

Below this you acknowledge that mutations occur. It's... it's that. That's what does it. You know mutations can accumulate, right? You don't have to give up one the moment your lineage develops another.

Okay, technically microevolution can occur with mutations also. Micro refers to change "below the level of species" while macro refers to change "at or above the level of species." In other words, Macro requires speciation to occur. And while micro can work without mutations, macro must have mutations in order to develop more complex life and allow speciation. I don't know what you're saying about natural selection and mutations. They are quite independent of each other. Natural selection takes the current gene pool and eliminates parts of it. Mutations modify the gene pool, which is grown through gene duplication.

Natural selection selects for those mutations that confer advantages to the individual organisms. Over time, lots and lots of time, those mutations build up, accumulating within the genetic line, one by one, little by little. That's how you get one species out of a different species; by denying "macro" evolution what you're really saying is that you agree small changes can occur, but that enough small changes will never equal larger ones. It's absurd.

We have a lot of extinct species. Similarity still doesn't imply causality. Supposition. This is a black-and-white issue here. Either you know the fossils are transitional or you don't.

We know the fossils are transitional because we aren't just working with the fossils. Like I say, we also have a slew of other data through multiple scientific disciplines all converging on the same answer. How is it a supposition when every other piece of data confirms the conclusions one might make regarding the fossils?

Just the fact that Evolution is a 'theory' indicates that it contains some presuppositions. I don't know why you are so up-in-arms about this reality.

Because you don't know what you're talking about, and apparently you also don't know what a theory is, in a scientific context. So allow me to educate you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_%28science%29

Does that help?

And thanks for making my job easy. I refer to a past thread (feel free to read): https://atheistforums.org/thread-10176-p...+Tiktaalik

You can find explanations for their debunking all over the internet, but the gist is this: The Archaeopteryx has since been reclassified by paleontologists as a true bird because each of its features is either found in true birds or is absent in many reptiles.

So? It was always going to be one or the other, you're never going to find a creature that's exactly halfway between a bird and a reptile. That's not what evolution is, because the change is always gradual. What makes Archaeopteryx transitional is not its classification, but the features it has in common with both dinosaurs and birds.

Oh, and you're simply flat out wrong about the conclusions that real scientists have made, anyway. Here, check it out: [url] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/bi...teryx.html[/url]

One year after the Tiktaalik's pronouncement as a transitional fossil, footprints were discovered in an older strata.

Once again, you're ignoring the conclusions of scientists in order to twist discoveries to fit your preconceptions. Do you know what actual scientists have to say about these older footprints? Well, here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary..._tiktaalik

Look for the news update from June 2010, at the bottom of the page. In short, while those additional footprints certainly contradict Tiktaalik's place as the earliest transitional tetrapod, they do not mean that Tiktaalik is a fake, or didn't evolve, or is not a transitional form. All they mean is that tetrapod evolution could have occurred even earlier than the scientists had predicted upon finding Tikltaalik (using, by the way, the predictive methods prescribed by evolution in order to find a fossil of the exact morphology they wanted, in the correct stratographic layer.)

I don't know whether you just didn't bother to research this stuff, or if you're just flat out lying to try and prove your point, but this is paper thin stuff you're presenting, here.

[downbeatplumb]

False. Evolution was not the first theory of its kind, there were previous presuppositions about a lack of evolution that were blown out of the water.

Could you elaborate, please? Hard examples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

This was the theory that what a parent did in life effected its offspring.

Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves high in trees (especially Acacias), strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks (also known as "soft inheritance").
A blacksmith, through his work, strengthens the muscles in his arms. His sons will have similar muscular development when they mature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

This held that there have been violent and sudden natural catastrophes such as great floods and the rapid formation of major mountain chains. Plants and animals living in those parts of the world where such events occurred were often killed off, according to the 19th-century French scientist Georges Cuvier. Then new life forms moved in from other areas. As a result, the fossil record for a region shows abrupt changes in species. Cuvier's explanation relied solely on scientific evidence rather than biblical interpretation.

[Tonus]

What's a/f/k?

Away From Keyboard. It's what happens when your Orc wizard idles for too long.

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RU-Bi9Bd2o

[Undeceived]

How is it a supposition when every other piece of data confirms the conclusions one might make regarding the fossils?

Like what data? When scientists date a fossil, they get outlying dates millions or sometimes hundreds of millions of years apart. They pick the date that closest matches their pre-drawn Evolutionary tree. In short, they make a presupposition.

Because you don't know what you're talking about, and apparently you also don't know what a theory is, in a scientific context. So allow me to educate you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_%28science%29

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. There can be more than one way to explain and interpret the present facts. How do you choose? By presupposing. Creationism also explains the facts.

So? It was always going to be one or the other, you're never going to find a creature that's exactly halfway between a bird and a reptile. That's not what evolution is, because the change is always gradual.

How is this not a contradictory statement?

What makes Archaeopteryx transitional is not its classification, but the features it has in common with both dinosaurs and birds.

There are no transitional species leading to or from the Archaeopteryx. There is nothing to indicate that the Archaeopteryx is anything more than a unique bird, in the way that the platypus is unique. It stands alone, just as Creationism predicts.

You’re missing the point about finding a convincing transitional fossil. We’re not looking for features common to two classes—Creationism predicts that God would not be limited to creating organisms along strict class lines. We’re looking for two very similar but different species separated by strata. For example, one Archaeopteryx with feathers and an older Archaeopteryx with scales (of course, they would have different names).

All they mean is that tetrapod evolution could have occurred even earlier than the scientists had predicted upon finding Tikltaalik

You admit you make that statement on a presupposition. Look at the Tikltaalik’s discovery this way. Scientists, as of 2006, know exactly where to look for a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods—no higher than the 365 mya strata. And they still haven’t found one of what should be millions.

[Esquilax]

Like what data? When scientists date a fossil, they get outlying dates millions or sometimes hundreds of millions of years apart. They pick the date that closest matches their pre-drawn Evolutionary tree. In short, they make a presupposition.

There's more than one way to date a fossil, and all of them have shown their accuracy.

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. There can be more than one way to explain and interpret the present facts. How do you choose? By presupposing. Creationism also explains the facts.

Of course creationism explains the facts: magic can explain anything. It's a panacea, a shrug you give when you can't be bothered actually looking for evidence, and in all of recorded human history it has always been the wrong answer for every question at hand. Not to mention, you can't demonstrate it, while you can do so for evolution.

How is this not a contradictory statement?

Because it's the truth? Sorry if you've misinterpreted what evolution is, but that's hardly my fault. The changes that evolution produces will always be small, small enough for the organisms to continue to maintain a breeding population; there's never going to suddenly be a dinosaur that lays a finch egg. Archaeopteryx is an early bird, but its morphological similarities with dinosaurs are what make it an example of transitional species. That's literally the definition; an organism from one species exhibiting a clear chain from an earlier one.

There are no transitional species leading to or from the Archaeopteryx. There is nothing to indicate that the Archaeopteryx is anything more than a unique bird, in the way that the platypus is unique. It stands alone, just as Creationism predicts.

None? None at all? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...s_to_birds

http://darwiniana.org/dinobirds.htm

All this is, is you sitting there and going "nuh uh!" without providing any evidence for your assertions, and in direct contradiction to the reams of it that I can provide.

You’re missing the point about finding a convincing transitional fossil. We’re not looking for features common to two classes—Creationism predicts that God would not be limited to creating organisms along strict class lines. We’re looking for two very similar but different species separated by strata. For example, one Archaeopteryx with feathers and an older Archaeopteryx with scales (of course, they would have different names).

Take a look at the chart in the second link I gave you there. There's multiple such organisms, replete with different names. There's also a list of them in the first link too.

You admit you make that statement on a presupposition. Look at the Tikltaalik’s discovery this way. Scientists, as of 2006, know exactly where to look for a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods—no higher than the 365 mya strata. And they still haven’t found one of what should be millions.

Wrong again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra..._tetrapods

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_04

Take a look at that exceedingly well mapped list of fish to tetrapod transitionals. Oh, and finding them in strata other than what they might predict only modulates the date at which such evolution occurred, it doesn't cast the entire process into doubt.

And where did I admit to a presupposition, exactly?

[Undeceived]

Of course creationism explains the facts: magic can explain anything.

There are other reasons for believing God exists. From those, we derive Creationism. Creationism did not appear in response to Evolution, but has been a staple belief since the beginning of humanity. The number one reason: life/material cannot create itself. In order to avoid infinite regress there needs to be a first efficient cause. By definition, any cause outside of the natural world is supernatural. Even if you throw the (circular) “quantum fluctuations” argument at me, that process would still be called supernatural and therefore, to use your word, "magical".

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_04

Take a look at that exceedingly well mapped list of fish to tetrapod transitionals.

Do you see the big difference between the digits of the Tiktaalik and Acanthostega? We are looking for transitional fossils between these two. None of the species here are close enough to be considered a modified version of another. They each boast tremendous differences, and are found across the world. The Acanthostega is half the size (or less) of the Tiktaalik. It's skull is stouter, and so on. Every part is slightly or moderately different. Hundreds, if not thousands, of beneficial mutations lie between.

Of course the species are well mapped. That only shows good artistry. Do you have any links to hard evidence for the dino-birds and fish-tetrapods-- some that are actually close in relationship? The links you have provided so far have only further demonstrated to me how vague arguments are for Evolution. Which suggests (to finally being the point around) how much the theory is reliant on one's prior beliefs. There is no confirming, undeniable evidence for macroevolution, and it doesn't appear there will ever be.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Time to split the thread or start a new one. It stopped being about ASK and moved into creationism/evolution.

[downbeatplumb]

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. There can be more than one way to explain and interpret the present facts. How do you choose? By presupposing. Creationism also explains the facts.

scientific theory
Web definitions
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable".
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The idea of creationism is not falsifiable because it relies on the impossible deity so does meet the criteria.

I can make up any old shit to explain things that fit the facts.

But to have a chance of being true they must also have evidence for them.

I could say invisible pxies punch creatures into new shapes in the egg/womb so that they develop into the "right shape" or I could say that tabitha from bewitched has made herself immortal and wiggles her little nose to make the animals the way she wants.

These explain the facts but are wrong they also have as much evidence for them as creationism.

You attack evolution because:

A: You don't fully understand it. It is a complex ever developing theory which is one the most exciting in modern science, which when appreciated is amazing.

B: You really want it to not be true.

But what you have missed is that even if evolution was wrong (which it isn't) it would not be evidence for creationism.

That is why you focus on destroying evolution, (and piss poor you are at it too), your beliefs have not factual basis that you can point to, Creationism no proof at all.

[Esquilax]

There are other reasons for believing God exists. From those, we derive Creationism. Creationism did not appear in response to Evolution, but has been a staple belief since the beginning of humanity.

It's also been a staple belief since then that the earth was flat. Surprisingly, that was wrong; so's creationism.

The number one reason: life/material cannot create itself. In order to avoid infinite regress there needs to be a first efficient cause. By definition, any cause outside of the natural world is supernatural. Even if you throw the (circular) “quantum fluctuations” argument at me, that process would still be called supernatural and therefore, to use your word, "magical".

You're conflating abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution deals with life that already exists, abiogenesis is the theory of life's beginnings. This isn't even an argument against evolution.

Do you see the big difference between the digits of the Tiktaalik and Acanthostega? We are looking for transitional fossils between these two. None of the species here are close enough to be considered a modified version of another. They each boast tremendous differences, and are found across the world. The Acanthostega is half the size (or less) of the Tiktaalik. It's skull is stouter, and so on. Every part is slightly or moderately different. Hundreds, if not thousands, of beneficial mutations lie between.

So? They're still transitional forms, no matter whether you feel like the changes are distinct enough. People who actually study this stuff have come to that conclusion, and yet you're going against people who know better because they disagree with your presupposition.

Besides, there probably are additional organisms in the lineage between these things. But that doesn't change the facts. Saying it is would be like saying I'm not my father's son because you never met my great great grandfather. Morphologically, these fossils are transitional, even if you don't think they're transitional enough.

Of course the species are well mapped. That only shows good artistry. Do you have any links to hard evidence for the dino-birds and fish-tetrapods-- some that are actually close in relationship? The links you have provided so far have only further demonstrated to me how vague arguments are for Evolution. Which suggests (to finally being the point around) how much the theory is reliant on one's prior beliefs. There is no confirming, undeniable evidence for macroevolution, and it doesn't appear there will ever be.

Do I have to keep mentioning the indisputable genetic and laboratory data, or are you going to keep spouting fanfiction about your pet god? Only one of us has actual evidence, dude; focusing on this one little area of it doesn't discredit everything else that proves evolution.

Look, I'm aware this is a divergence from the thread topic. It probably should be split off, or we should make a new one to continue this, I don't wanna step on anyone's toes here.